5 ms·
I speak at Harvard as it faces its biggest crisis since 1636
- nonrandomstring 2y agoAmidst all the inhumane political calamity TFA hits on the most interesting sounding discussion on the limits of rational perception, relation of computabilty and knowability. That's a talk I'd like to see.
- kleton 2y agoI don't think the institution will run out of money any time soon. It's a $50bn prop trading firm with a university attached.
- sorcerer-mar 2y agohttps://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrosowsky/2020/06/01/why-not-use-those-large-endowments-to-save-colleges/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrosowsky/2020/06/01/why-no...
- mgkimsal 2y ago"In fact, it is neither strategic for the university, nor respectful of the donors’ intent. It is neither financially responsible/prudent, nor is it permissible." Did the donors intend to have the entire university system ground down to the point where the ability to fund the donors' plans is completely gone? Donors funding programs to encourage research in to areas of science the Trump administration wants to outlaw... they should just ... sit on the money? Return the money to donors and say "sorry, 49% of voters decided that your family's wishes are illegal"? You want to fund weather research in to climate change, and set up a legacy endowment with your university. Research in to that is outlawed in 2027. What should the university do now, knowing this sort of thing is coming? The article was about covid. This is about an actual attack on the essence of what makes the universities attractive to donations in the first place.
- sorcerer-mar 2y agoThe point is that there's neither as much money nor as much flexibility as people imagine there to be. We shouldn't be flippant about these attacks because these institutions have what appear to be (but functionally are not really) giant war chests.
- mgkimsal 2y agoI'm not flippant about it, and do not take the suggestion of using some endowment money for 'non-specified purposes' lightly. I don't think it should be completely off the table. The Trump administration has relied on people and companies responding to their aggression and violation of norms within the bounds of normalcy. None of this is normal. We are being gish galloped with attacks on all fronts of societal norms at once - threatening law firms, universities, students, immigrants. Attack the powerless and those with some power to protect those powerless at the same time.
- sorcerer-mar 2y agoI don't think we disagree on any of this. I was taking issue with this framing: "I don't think the institution will run out of money any time soon. It's a $50bn prop trading firm with a university attached."
- nkassis 2y agoThis is why they needed to be the one to fight, if they folded no one else had a chance to stop this government overreach.
- rofo1 2y agoI am not up to date on all details, but how exactly is it overreach? It's a good question whether government should give money (9bn but I could be wrong) for research, but lets put that aside for now. (who determines what "research" is this? it could be quantum mechanics, or it could be "gender studies") Curious as to why do you think this is an overreach.
- mgkimsal 2y agohttps://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Letter-Sent-to-Harvard-2025-04-11.pdf https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/... Did you read the demands? "By August 2025, the University must adopt and implement merit-based hiring policies, and cease all preferences based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin throughout its hiring, promotion, compensation, and related practices among faculty, staff, and leadership. Such adoption and implementation must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes. All existing and prospective faculty shall be reviewed for plagiarism and Harvard’s plagiarism policy consistently enforced. All hiring and related data shall be shared with the federal government and subjected to a comprehensive audit by the federal government during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028." Trump administration is now the defacto HR department for Harvard, and eventually all universities.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> cease all preferences based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin But! Also! "The University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse."
- wnc3141 2y agosidebar - will your lecture be streamed to the general public?
- amazingamazing 2y agoPrivate colleges shouldn't be taking public money to begin with. Hopefully this ends with colleges having their (private college) tax exempt status revoked. Anyone who's been to Massachusetts knows how much real estate Harvard (and MIT, and BU, and Boston College, etc, etc.) owns. Why should they be tax exempt? End it now. Also, Trump's demands are silly and not even internally consistent.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y agoThey are both colleges (educational institutions) and research institutions. For decades or more, research in the USA has been a central function of government (although it also happens in a few entirely privately funded organizations). That's what (most) of the public money is for, and there is no sane reason to stop that.
- glial 2y agoYes - there is another HN discussion active today on the topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43692360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43692360
- amazingamazing 2y agoPublic colleges can monopolize the research funded with public money.
- metalliqaz 2y agoEnd what? The government paying for research? I think that's a foolish idea.
- amazingamazing 2y agoPublic Money going to private schools.
- NekkoDroid 2y agoIf we follow that thought through public money also shouldn't go to private companies.
- kombine 2y ago[flagged]
- crop_rotation 2y agoYou are acting as if the world is binary and either the previous status quo was justified or Trump's actions are justified, neither of which have to be the case.
- kombine 2y agoPrevious status quo was absolutely unjustified, therefore brave students protested it, at a great personal risk while being slandered as "antisemites" by individuals like Scott Aaronson.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> brave students protested it, at a great personal risk while being slandered as "antisemites" by individuals like Scott Aaronson Do you have an example? Israel-Palestine is a nuanced ground truth that has been ridiculously oversimplified in American discourse. "Pro Israel" covers folks who want to kill every Palestinian and annex their land to those who just don't want kids slaughtered at raves. "Pro Palestine" covers people who want the basic human dignity of an ancient people respected, through those who want to destroy Israel as a nation-state, all the way over to full-blown racists who hate Jews (or anyone with European heritage).
- kombine 2y ago> Do you have an example? If you lived under the rock the entire 2024, here is one: https://www.facebook.com/scott.aaronson.5/posts/pfbid0H5mDomiaW7jiiXsorSj3ib11aAr9LmmZ6bQ6WH7Am12KnARoXwNpgSYTRFkfWKhTl https://www.facebook.com/scott.aaronson.5/posts/pfbid0H5mDom... > the 20-year-old Israeli who’s now in notoriously antisemitic Malmö, Sweden It's because of Aaronson and others that the original meaning of antisemitism almost entirely lost its meaning. They perverted it to suit their political agenda.
- slackfan 2y agoWhat crisis the Universities endowment bigger than ever. What's losing a few federal dollars gonna do. Oh wait the admin staff is in danger that decided to quadruple their positions and give themselves raises as they torpedoed The quality of education and services on campus. They deserves everything it's getting and more. I say this as somebody that Was a student there and worked for the university.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- aduffy 2y ago> By taking this scorched-earth route, the government has effectively telegraphed to all the other universities, as clearly as possible: “actually, we don’t care what you do or don’t do on antisemitism. We just want to destroy you, and antisemitism was our best available pretext". Yep. Glad everyone is starting to realize this. What we're seeing has nothing to do with antisemitism, it is a blatant attempt to seize ideological control of every single cultural institution of American Power. Nothing that happened at a campus protest can justify the all-out assault on 1A that is happening now. I applaud Harvard for standing up, but to be honest, anything less (e.g. Columbia's complete capitulation) is simply spineless and unseemly for any mega-endowed university.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago"...once the government did take away funding and present its ultimatum—completely outside the process specified in Title VI law—Columbia’s administration quickly agreed to everything asked, to howls of outrage from the left-leaning faculty. Yet despite its total capitulation, the government has continued to hold Columbia’s medical research and other science funding hostage, while inventing a never-ending list of additional demands..." I missed this. Good call out.
- EA-3167 2y agoThe shame IMO is that this is going to further polarize people along the lines of "Yay, stick it to those rich schools" and "Omg, this is literally the second coming of Hitler." It would be lovely to have a broad conversation about why it makes no sense for the government to play HR manager for universities, and ALSO ask why billions in tax money is perennially given to ultra-wealthy, exclusive universities who are often more than capable of finding opportunities for profit in the private sector. Because the question seems to be: "Is Harvard capable of remaining solvent without a couple of billion per year? If that's the case, what's going on there? What is the taxpayer getting out of this that it wouldn't be able to get otherwise? Is there no other funding model?" Then we have this: https://networkcontagion.us/reports/11-6-23-the-corruption-of-the-american-mind/ https://networkcontagion.us/reports/11-6-23-the-corruption-o... Which opens the question of whether or not cutting funding is likely to get what the government wants, or further drive universities to seek funding from potentially hostile foreign governments. And I think depending on where the money goes and how it's spent, sometimes the answers range across a whole spectrum. But as I said, instead of that conversation, we're stuck with more politics as a team sport.
- ThrowawayR2 2y ago> "...more than capable of finding opportunities for profit in the private sector..." You actually want research institutions to be even more patent-happy moneygrubbers than they already are today? That's going to keep even more technologies and drugs unaffordable without licensing and hold back progress.
- thro3838484848 2y agoJust a few decades ago US had quotas, how many Jews could study on university. Isaac Asimov could not be medical doctor, and become writer for this reason! Even today Harward is doing everything it can, to have a less Jews, they are not preferred minority! Please spare me of this selective "antisemitism"!
- like_any_other 2y ago[flagged]
- red020 2y ago[dead]
- thro3838484848 2y agoIf Harvard chooses less gifted student, just to avoid "yet another Jew", it is clearly antisemitism!
- red020 2y ago[flagged]
- guelo 2y agoIt is the bipartisan innovation in pro-Zionist legal tools, from the "war on terror" to last year's attacks on student protesters, that has eroded our constitutional safeguards to the point that a legitimate autocratic coup is being attempted.
- edanm 2y agoAm I misunderstanding, or are you blaming Zionism for the erosion of all constitutional safeguards? Including specifically the "war on terror"? That is dangerously close to blaming Jews for secretly controlling the world.
- guelo 2y ago1) I said Zionists not Jews. Many of the policymakers were not Jewish. 2) A big part of the Iraq war blunder was planned and promoted by neocons with explicit Zionist intentions.
- xnx 2y agoThe administration is only using "anti-semitism" as an excuse because they didn't think of blaming fentanyl first.
- mgkimsal 2y agoThat may come up at some point, because we all 'know' campuses are hotbeds of illegal drug use.
- like_any_other 2y agoGlad Harvard finally decided attacks against academia have gone too far. It wasn't too far when scientists were forced to make an ideological oath to diversity to get hired [1,2], when they were hired primarily based on adherence to that ideology [3,4,5], when they were told by major scientific publications to avoid or simply not publish studies that might question that ideology [6,7], when they disavowed studies based solely on them being used to criticize favored causes [8], when papers were rejected if their results went against the liberal worldview, but methodologically-identical papers with pro-liberal results were accepted [9], or when scientists were barred from accessing taxpayer-funded data if there was a risk their research might harm the dominant ideology [10]. It was too far - a crisis! - when Harvard disagreed with the attackers, when the attackers were outsiders. [1] Required ‘diversity and inclusion’ statements amount to a political litmus test for hiring - https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-universitys-new-loyalty-oath-11576799749 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-universitys-new-loyalty-oat... [2] Diversity Statements Required for One-Fifth of Academic Jobs - https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-statements-required-for-one-fifth-of-academic-jobs/ https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-... [3] Berkeley Weeded Out Job Applicants Who Didn't Propose Specific Plans To Advance Diversity - https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diversity-initiative-berkeley/ https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diver... [4] A recent report from the Goldwater Institute found that 80% of job postings for Arizona’s public universities required applicants to submit a statement detailing their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. - https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/policy-report/the-new-loyalty-oaths/ https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/policy-report/the-new-loy... [5] Mathematicians divided over faculty hiring practices that require proof of efforts to promote diversity - https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/mathematicians-divided-over-faculty-hiring-practices-require-proof-efforts-promote https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/mathematicians-divid... [6] Science Must Not Be Used to Foster White Supremacy - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-must-not-be-used-to-foster-white-supremacy/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-must-not-... [7] Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2 [8] I Cited Their Study, So They Disavowed It - https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-cited-their-study-so-they-disavowed-it-11594250254 https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-cited-their-study-so-they-dis... [9] Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. - https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-12806-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-12806-001 [10] The National Institutes of Health now blocks access to an important database if it thinks a scientist’s research may enter “forbidden” territory. - https://www.city-journal.org/nih-blocks-access-to-genetics-database https://www.city-journal.org/nih-blocks-access-to-genetics-d...
- mgkimsal 2y agoFor anyone who hasn't read the letter... https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Letter-Sent-to-Harvard-2025-04-11.pdf https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/... Trump administration is both demanding a end to all DEI programs, and mandating "viewpoint diversity". "Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity. If the review finds that the existing faculty in the relevant department or field are not capable of hiring for viewpoint diversity, or that the relevant teaching unit is not capable of admitting a critical mass of students with diverse viewpoints, hiring or admissions within that department, field, or teaching unit shall be transferred to the closest cognate department, field, or teaching unit that is capable of achieving viewpoint diversity." But... you also can't have any DEI programs.
- bediger4000 2y ago"Viewpoint diversity" looks like it means something other than a literal interpretation. Without a definition of that phrase, it would appear that "abandoning DEI" would conflict with "viewpoint diversity". Give what "freedom of speech absolutism" meant in practice, I'm guessing that "viewpoint diversity" is a demand for primacy of far-right views, but I could certainly be wrong
- mgkimsal 2y ago> I'm guessing that "viewpoint diversity" is a demand for primacy of far-right views, but I could certainly be wrong. I can't really see it as a call for anything else. Conservatives often self-select out of attending universities in the first place, so there's already a perceived imbalance.
- jl6 2y agoGood to see someone call out both the government authoritarianism and the academic echo chambers that precipitated it. Clean hands are in short supply here.
- mrandish 2y agoI think Scott's take here is fair because he acknowledges that most of the Ivy League did (and largely still does) have huge problems with adequately protecting Jewish students and perspectives, and more broadly, intellectual viewpoint diversity of any kind. And prior administrations did push regulatory and funding requirements and policies to support DEI and other hot point issues to an extent that was clearly agenda biased. But, as Scott observes, unfortunately the current administration has gone far beyond trying to correct those excesses to a more neutral or balanced median and is, instead, doing the same things (and much worse) that "the other guys" did, just in the opposite direction. That makes the current administration just as wrong as the prior ones were. Only now we're hearing much more about it because the current agenda-driven biases are ones that >85% of academia doesn't hold themselves.
- ks2048 2y ago> and is, instead, doing the same things "the other guys" did, just in the opposite direction. I don't think this is a fair characterization at all. Below, is copied from an NYT article [https://archive.ph/ONxlX https://archive.ph/ONxlX]. Which of these did previous administrations do? === Some of the actions that the Trump administration demanded of Harvard were: * Conducting plagiarism checks on all current and prospective faculty members. * Sharing all its hiring data with the Trump administration, and subjecting itself to audits of its hiring while “reforms are being implemented,” at least through 2028. * Providing all admissions data to the federal government, including information on both rejected and admitted applicants, sorted by race, national origin, grade-point average and performance on standardized tests. * Immediately shutting down any programming related to diversity, equity and inclusion. * Overhauling academic programs that the Trump administration says have “egregious records on antisemitism,” including placing certain departments and programs under an external audit. The list includes the Divinity School, the Graduate School of Education, the School of Public Health and the Medical School, among many others.
- mrandish 2y agoI've edited my post to add "doing the same things (and much worse)" which I should have put originally because I think it's true that the current administration is coming up with "all-new and improved" ways to bring pressure. To be fair, a defender of the current administration (which I'm obviously not) might point out that "the other guy" administration was pushing an agenda bias on people who broadly agreed with the direction, while the current administration is pushing against strong bias the other direction - so more pressure is justified. While I agree any moves away from the preferred extreme and back toward the middle (and beyond), will meet with resistance from the institution's partisan majority and encounter 'malicious compliance' at best, that still doesn't morally justify bias in the other direction. Eventually, someone needs to have the courage to step up and not play the "Retaliate and Escalate" move on their turn with Power Boost (that's the two years where one party holds control of the executive and congress, which, lately, each side gets approximately every 6-8 years (there is one "Lose Turn" card in the deck but it's rare). Missing in all that is, of course, the best long-term strategy would be to reverse only to a relatively neutral position and take the moral high-ground of saying that the government shouldn't push agenda positions and try to get the center to rally around you. Basically, really try to be neutral. Protect all viewpoints equally and favor none. No negative biases but also no affirmative action. Previous jihads against one direction don't justify crusades in response. That kind of reasoning was how we got 'affirmative action' in response to OG institutional racism. Now the current administration is justifying going to extremes with the same flawed reasoning of "correcting sins of the past". For example, "shutting down any programming related to diversity, equity and inclusion" is just as wrong as demanding all departments force everyone to sign DEI pledges or that all students take a DEI class. To me, the real enemy here is government compelling private universities to "always do" or "never do" (forbid or require) any specific thing about any of these culture war topics. At some point, we need to learn from and remember the past but otherwise decide it's time to let the past go. The current moment would have been a good time to plant a bold flag for no systemic institutional biases for or against any culture war agenda-driven "correction". But the current administration seems set on continuing what looks to be a never-ending culture war. Perhaps the most stupid thing is both sides continue to act like anything which can be accomplished by presidential fiat can't just as easily be undone by presidential fiat. Day one of the next Democrat administration they'll undo most of this and when they get their next turn with Power Boost they'll undo all of it. If the past is any measure, they'll also use all the "New and Improved" methods this administration is coming up with to push in the other direction (just as Trump is using every technique for presidential expansion Obama 'innovated').
- like_any_other 2y ago[flagged]
- thatguymike 2y ago"events have given us no choice but to fight Trump as if there were no antisemitism, even while we continue to fight antisemitism as if there were no Trump." Great line which sums up the correct stance to take in the current environment.
- dang 2y agoRecent and related: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43684536 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43684536 - April 2025 (1215 comments) Federal Government's letter to Harvard demanding changes [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43684386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43684386 - April 2025 (92 comments)